Give the producers of “Lost” credit: they know the pulse of their audience. It may not be the first show to cultivate an internet fan base, and it may not be the most forthcoming with them, but you better believe these people hang out at message boards. They read our weekly griping and, for better or worse, they respond.
When people started combing through their Tivo’s looking for obscured and tenuous clues to the mysteries of the island, the show kicked it up a notch, slapping the shadowy Dharma Initiative logo (or was it just plain shadows) on the shark that menaced the raft at the beginning of the season and burying the Latin word for “polar bear” in the black light map found by Locke (Terry O’Quinn). As theories began to fly that perhaps this has all been a prolonged dream just before the plane crashed or that the survivors are caught in an otherworldly stasis where the living fraternize with the dead, we see characters reach for their nearby copies of An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge and The Turn of the Screw (and hey, aren’t those malevolent forces traipsing around the jungle referred to as “the others?”) So what have the creative team of Carlton Cuse and Damon Lindelof and absentee creator J.J. Abrams been hearing as of late from their loyal fans?
Well, mostly that the show’s gotten sort of dull, the characters have become depressingly passive, they’re not revealing enough about the island and that we viewers have been getting restless.
As beleaguered “Sopranos” fans everywhere can attest, nothing shuts up naysayers like a good old fashion bloodbath.
And that’s exactly the sort of curve thrown at us in the closing moments of last week’s episode “Two for the Road” (written by former “Deadwood” writer-producer Elizabeth Sarnoff and Christina M. Kim) which found the well-liked Libby (Cynthia Watros) and the nearly universally-despised Anna-Lucia (Michelle Rodriguez) inexplicably gunned down in cold blood by Harold Perrineau’s character, Michael. Michael, who up until this point has been one of the most sympathetic characters on the show, then compounds his betrayal by allowing their prisoner, the shifty-eyed (and most likely a murderer) Henry Gale, to escape before giving himself a superficial bullet wound in the shoulder to cover his tracks.
Has Michael been brainwashed? Has he brokered a deal with “the others” in order to get his son, Walt, back? Is he trying to rile up his fellow castaways for war, or are they about to walk into a trap of his making? The answers to these questions will likely have to wait till next week’s Michael-centric episode, but from a “buzz” standpoint the show has accomplished what it set out to do. Everyone’s talking again. And we can probably strike “dull” and “passive” from the list of grievances.
Having sedated the first wave of skepticism with an emotional jolt to the system, the show has next sought to address some of the more academic concerns with last night’s episode, the appropriately titled “?”. Here we find island doctor Jack (Matthew Fox) tending to Libby as she clings to life while most of the cast stands by in a teary-eyed vigil for their fallen comrades. Meanwhile, the island’s two spiritual leaders, Locke and Eko (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje), ostensibly search for the missing Henry Gale. A search ultimately serving as a cover story for Eko’s pursuit of a landmark shaped like the titular piece of punctuation, foretold to him by his dead brother in a dream. (Sorry to break the fourth wall here, but I’ve retyped that last sentence five times and it sounds sillier each time I write it. It’s just that kind of a show)
A curse of its own brilliant concept, “Lost” has never really had much success at truly developing its characters despite a format that relies heavily on expository flashbacks. To get viewers quickly up to speed, the show was forced to populate itself with a series of easily identifiable archetypes (the sleazy Southern con artist, the snotty rich beauty, the fugitive tomboy, the self-effacing fat comic-book geek, etc…) But once you’ve established your character can outrun federal marshals, used to bilk lonely housewives out of their savings or was a Korean mob enforcer, it’s hard to buy their more quiet moments of introspection or believably watch them grapple with everyday insecurities and fears. There’s a reason we don’t see James Bond sitting down for coffee and pie and just shooting the breeze.
One of the few characters to overcome this crutch (ahem) is Locke who not only gets to wrestle with all of the show’s meaty philosophy questions but appears to be the only one who gets to organically grow as the show evolves (the show is blessed to have O’Quinn who, as stated before in this forum, performs miracles with the show’s distressingly on the nose dialogue… more on that in a minute).
Operating under the belief that he was part of the island’s grand design, that their plane crashed here for a reason, Locke has spent the better part of this past season confined to the garishly decorated hatch famously stumbled upon last year, fulfilling his Sisyphean mission. His task: endlessly typing the same six numbers into a computer every 108 minutes because… Well he’s not certain why exactly, just that it’s important.
For a show so self-reflexive, I sometimes fear it will break its back staring into its own asshole, here is the perfect metaphor for “Lost.” Like Locke, we go through our weekly routine, sift through the obtuse clues (which now extends to fake television advertisements with creepy websites to visit and phone numbers to call interspersed into commercial breaks), devour what little morsels we’re given, pray the show may finally give something away and dourly pledge “well next week has to be better.” Just keep punching ‘em in, every Wednesday at 9pm. And like many of us, Locke has finally had enough.
“?” written by Cuse and Lindelof, finally confirms what has been hinted at for weeks now: that the numbers are nothing more than a BF Skinner-like experiment in control (“rats in a maze… with no cheese” as Locke puts it). There is no looming danger; no imperative in pushing the buttons despite the blaring alarm. This one act will not explain the meaning of life or why we’re here. In short, the islanders (and by extension, we the viewers) have been scammed.
Or have we?
I knock the show quite a bit, but I’ll give it credit for not only fessing-up that this particular storyline is most likely a dead-end, but also allowing us (through Locke) to vent our frustration. Considering a good 75% of the plot this season has centered on those damn numbers and what’s going on in the hatch, this is sort of a kick in the pants. O’Quinn, who spent last season hunting boar, throwing knives, and in general playing the part of the island’s Yoda, has spent the better part of season 2 parked in front of a computer screen with a bored look on his face. A part of me wonders if Locke’s tirade in this episode wasn’t at least informed by the actor learning it’s all been for naught.
Granted the ensuing speech which finds O’Quinn practically spitting as he yells and punches the wall is the sort of grandiose, embarrassing moment of capital D “drama” that represents the worst tendencies of the show. I still admire the effort on this one. Just as I begrudgingly admire the way the episode whacks us on the nose with a rolled-up newspaper, forcing us to reprioritize why we watch this show.
“The reason to do it, push the button, is not because we are told to so in the film” says Eko, referring to the hilariously dated instructional video conveniently placed
within the hatch. He continues, “we do it because we believe we are meant to.” While Locke (ie: more pragmatic viewers) clearly considers this latest discovery a setback, Eko (standing in for those watching the show for the overall experience) still views the events that have befallen them, and the mysterious circumstances surrounding their survival as a sign of something larger and quite wonderful; after somehow ending up on the same island as his long-dead brother, inexplicably reunited at last, how could it not be?
Perhaps he’s right, and “Lost” isn’t a math problem to be solved. And maybe obsessing over clues and pouring over evidence is beside the point. There are no easy solutions here and you can either fixate on trying to draw conclusions or you can go with the flow. Am I nuts, or is the show telling us to just chill out and enjoy ourselves?
I realize I’ve gone on for quite a bit (apologies, I’m still getting a feel for format here at “the House”), so I’ll try to summarize my thoughts on the rest of the episode quickly. Like most of the flashbacks this season, I found Eko’s Father Merrin-like quest to debunk a miracle rather pointless; a roundabout way to establish the character’s belief in the otherworldly, culminating in a clumsily written exchange in an airport terminal that played like an outtake from the John Edward show (also did we really need the appearance of a still animated Lilly to hammer home the conversing with the dead point?) The one interesting component of the flashbacks, I thought, was the reappearance of the roly-poly psychic who last season convinced Claire that her unborn baby was in danger and sent her off on that fated plane to LA. That he confesses to being a fraud seemingly negates much of the mythology swirling around the cute little tyke (baby Aaron is a central component in many of the fan theories that exist about the island), mirroring the bad news about Locke and his numbers. Red herring or the real McCoy? Oh those crafty writers. I thought it was a wonderful bit of acting by Jorge Garcia as Hugo, stoically telling Michael he and Libby were about to go on their first date and then (here’s where it really starts to hurt) expressing his gratitude that Michael wasn’t badly injured in the “attack.” At the same time I could have done without the Hannibal Lecter shot of Michael: we truck in on Perrineau standing against a wall, the actor breaks character and stares menacingly into the camera as the episode (and Libby) expires. Ewww, how ominous!
Still, with its creative batteries recharged and (hopefully) freed of its slavish dedication to the hatch plotline, maybe now’s when things get really scary.
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Lost: Season 2, Ep. 21 "?"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
16 comments:
Hi Andrew--Just a couple of thoughts on a couple of your conclusions:
1) I wouldn't be so sure that the button-pushing is simply a BF Skinner experiment. You're assuming the scientist in the Dharma Initiative videotape is a reliable narrator, which I'm certainly not willing to do. For all we know, the button-pushing IS legit, and it's the observation procedure that's the psychological experiment!
2) I also wouldn't be so sure that the psychic's claim to be a fraud invalidates what he said about Claire's baby, mostly because we have no way of knowing whether his admission to Eko took place before or after his fateful statements to Claire. At any rate, I can't figure out what his financial motive would be for telling her to KEEP her baby, which is what he ended up doing...
The show has had some ups and downs recently, and for all the frustration I've felt, the fact remains that it's one of the only shows that we'll make an evening around.
Some nights I feel really, really yanked around, but I have some info that might help.
I worked with writer a couple years back who's still in contact with a friend o' mine. Although I don't have any insight( and wouldn't give anything away if I did) I can say that that writer is now a producer/writer on LOST and he has said that the series DOES have an end that's worked out. Knowing this helps me feel a bit better about tuning in.
Of course, things can always change depending on how long the show can keep going and all, but it does instil some confidence that we'll eventually taste the carrot.
BTW, my compliments on the analysis on the show. Well thought out.
Sean t. Collins: with a show like "Lost" it's dangerous to deal in absolutes, so wherever possible I tried to cover my ass (“seemingly,” “possibly,” etc…) As I've found myself much in the mindset of Locke lately, I choose to believe this is the show's way of allowing the routine of the numbers to, if not die away gracefully, than at least recede into the background for a while as they move onto new business. It's possible that the inhabitants of station Pearl are also part of a control exercise, but I don't think the evidence is there to support it.
And again, same thing with Claire's baby. It's a new wrinkle thrown at us in an episode dedicated to disproving the fantastic and supernatural. I don't doubt that the writers were conscious of the effect this tidbit of info would have placed within the context of everything else going on. Only time will tell whether this really means anything.
8th man: Thanks for the kind words. Matt and his cadre of guest writers raise the bar of intelligent, amusing, analytical writing on the subject of pop culture each and every day. Not trying to kiss ass; just getting across how intimidating the gig was as a fan and first-timer. Hopefully other people dug it too.
I love the deep thought and potential plotlines everyone thinks up. Could those who write the show also benefit from our ideas?
As for speculation about the psychic: could he perhaps be just trying to keep the limelight off his family and career by telling Eko all that fraud stuff?
Andrew Dignan sez: " It's possible that the inhabitants of station Pearl are also part of a control exercise, but I don't think the evidence is there to support it."
Remember that at one point Locke looks up and sees a camera pointing down on them in Pearl Station.... oooEEEooo!
I sometimes think the show works best when it defies logic (but not too much) and takes a right turn just when I think I have it figured out. For instance, I found last weeks' show with Anna Lucia getting the gun, etc., mostly filler. But right when I was about to deem the show merely okay, Michael takes the gun. Brilliant! I am them left to consider whether he is drugged, brain-washed, or just a concerned parent. I love having a little brain teaser to work out afterwards. Great water-cooler stuff!
Keep up the good work here!
Just a quick note of appreciation, partially for the pinch hitters around here, but especially for the acting interplay between Eko and Locke, which I thought was never less than compelling.
Barring an elaborate mindgame (always a possibility):
Dr. Marvin Candle (or whoever he really is) has a prosthetic left arm in the Swan's orientation film. This PROBABLY means it was made after the film in the Pearl.
The Swan's film outlines protocol, added due to the "incident": namely, the button.
So it's POSSIBLE that the film in the Pearl refers to the Swan's original purpose, pre-incident.
But seeing this out of context, Locke jumps to the conclusion that the button is not important, when it actually still is.
Just like a piece was taken out of the Swan's film to alter its meaning.
Just like fake Henry supplied misinformation ever since they captured him, especially to Locke.
anonymous: Keeping up with the various "Lost" theories always makes my head swim, as more often than not they contradict one another (this week's issue of Entertainment Weekly is chock full of them). I try not to get too deep into my personal theories, but rather pray that the ones the show gives us will start to make sense. I will say this though: my knee- jerk reaction to this week's episode was to place the "the film" found within the Pearl closer to the present than the one in the Swan simply because of the format on which it was presented. The video cassette has a 1980 copyright meaning if the Swan film is more recent than they consciously decided to forgo the technology available to them to make an antiquated film strip. That coupled with the decor of the Swan (the reel to reel music player, the color scheme out of a “Three’s Company” episode) felt as though they pre-dated the 1980's. As for the phantom missing arm of Dr. Marvin Candle (I’m embarrassed to admit I’m not familiar with who this man is or what role he has in the Hanso Foundation) and how this might establish a different chronology than the one I’m speculating, all I can say is if the island can make Locke walk and cure Rose’s cancer…
Just an admittedly very minor point. Ana-Lucia, rather than being nearly-universally despised, was actually pretty popular in my admittedly distaff-leaning (2 daughters and spouse) household, all of whom admired her ability to kick some man ass when the occasion demanded it. She will be missed.
When it comes to this show my patience and generosity have just about run out. I'm glad of the crescendo these last two weeks, but the worst problem with Lost is perhaps best explained like this: Cuse and Lindelof, the showrunners, the 'visionaries' behind Season Two, wrote this week's episode - and I had no idea. There was no piercing insight into any character, no laser-sharp dialogue, no hard-earned pathos. 'The lovable fat guy cries.' 'The sage questions himself.' 'The "priest" reasserts his faith.' 'The two romantic male leads clash.' Pure goddamn boilerplate, at no point distinguished by the firm authorial hand of (I'm repeating myself), say, Milch, or Chase, or Whedon. (Actually Chase is an exception - the writing on The Sopranos is freakishly consistent. But that's partially his overall touch, I'd imagine.)
At least 50% Season Two has been time-wasting pabulum, a holding pattern between revelations that are more interesting in synopsis than week-to-week and line-to-line execution. It's not the fault of the premise, Andrew; more has been done with less. It's the fault of writers who have no interest in - or perhaps no knack for - investing these characters with rich emotional lives of their own. The failure to provide coherent, compelling backstory for these characters could have been avoided. But one gets the sense that Cuse/Lindelof/Abrams realized they were going to have to make it to syndication in spite of giving away most of the characters' secrets, and beyond the Obvious Big Ones they've had a hard time cooking up compelling stories for the castaways.
Why has the show heated up these last two weeks? Because they're paying attention to the adventure narrative, the conspiracy narrative. But if anything the backstories have gotten more trivial. That's a major sign of creative poverty in the writers' room.
I wonder whether they'd be better off simply jettisoning the mandatory flashbacks and concentrating on the social fabric of the island. John Rogers is dead right: Boone died not because 'the island demanded it' but because there was nothing else for the writers to do with the character (in fairness the hallucination episode was pretty compelling, if ludicrous, but it sprang practically out of nowhere - one didn't get the sense that the decision to help out Locke at the hatch stemmed from deep psychology, but rather from narrative-structural imperative).
The finale of Season One remains the show's high point, and not just because it could trade entirely in unanswered questions. It pulled the characters together in exciting ways, underscored social conflicts without pushing chess pieces around, used the setting to extraordinary effect (remember the Black Rock!), and was paced exquisitely (and that boat launch scene earns tears). Along with that finale and the stunning pilot episode, the best character work is the early Fury-scripted Locke hour, 'Walkabout'. The show is at its best with Jack and Locke, who're still surrounded with unanswered questions (though Jack's departing-wife episode was deeply stupid). Beyond them, the writers need to get cooking on interesting conflicts between castaways - not the dull-witted schematicism of so much of Season Two, but more authentically character-driven work, as in the show's early heyday.
e.g. Hey, remember how there used to be a character named 'Charlie'? And everyone was talking about how he's be 'Iago-like'? And he liked this Australian chick, the pregnant one...what was her name? Charlie's role is now a structural one rather than an evolving organic one, and Claire got one good hour this year (the excellent Girls Adventure episode) but that's it.
The premise is ingenious. The line-to-line writing is not. A structural change like ditching the burden of flashbacks might loosen up the show. But finding the nearest deeply empathetic showrunner (hey aren't the Palladino-Shermans looking for work?) and giving them final rewrite will do more good...
I would say the scientist is most definitely not reliable. Dr Candle, as he introduces himself in the Swan orientation film, introduces himself as Marvin Wickman in the Pearl orientation video. He appears older in the Swan film, and VHS arrived in '76, so was this a mistake Dharma made, or an intentional diversion? If we remember Zeke's spirit-gummed beard discovered by Kate in the med-hatch, we can assume DI is practiced in the art of deception.
When I think about the kind of resources it would take in order to pull off the experiment/deception underway on the island I am reminded of another corporation who engineered elaborate games designed to insidiously manipulate the reality of an unsuspecting subject: Consumer Recreation Services, from David Fincher's "The Game". CRS, like DI, claim to be beneficent but their methods and presentation suggest otherwise.
I think you've made a good point here, which is that LOST is going to require patience in its audience no matter how frustrating that sometimes may be.
The murders committed by Michael infuriated me on one level, because I actually thought Ana Lucia was one of the more interesting characters on the show in terms of her psychological backstory. Kate has spent most of the season following the guys around and Claire is underused.
The shooting kept the focus on what the castaways do, rather than what's done to them. (That's the most concise way I can think of to explain it.)
I guess I'm in the minority on Ana Lucia, but what are you going to do? Any thoughts on the relevance of Jack's father to the goings-on? That's a pet theory of mine, unlikely I admit.
Not only Jack's father, but Kate's army father, Locke's own father, not powerful, but manipulative, and possibly connected to people in high places (Hanso?), Sun's father, who I dont believe we've seen but who seems to be someone of great power and influence, and who, judging by Sun's gynocologist's reaction, will exert himself upon other people at will. They all have very contentious relationships with their fathers. It's another coincidence which leads one to wonder...
The one thing I keep coming back to is the plane crash. It had to be an accident, in spite of each of the survivors seeming (again, that word) to be lead to that particular flight. How could it have been planned? How could it have been that this particular group of survivors made it? Were all of the passengers onboard similary chosen for their usefulness as subjects? How could survival be insured? Are there any statistical probability experts on this board who feel like crunching some numbers?
I sometimes think I'm way too literal-minded for this show. Lost really is torture for anyone who clings to real-world logic in the face of blind faith and far flung conspiracy theories (can you tell why I responded so strongly to this episode?). I remember when Claire and company explored the hatch where she had been taken back in season one, and they stumbled upon "Zeke's" fake beard my immediate thought was that the actor MC Gainey had shaved for another role and the show would be forced to explain this discrepancy. Because this guy walking around in a jungle wearing a heavy beard kept up by spirit gun is just too absurd to believe, right? Umm...
I also often think of the show in relation to The Game. Unfortunately after that film was over I found myself sitting there thinking, "so the entire city of San Francisco was in on this elaborate scam, having built an entire elaborate infrastructure and cast of thousands to support it at a cost of untold millions, just for this rich shmuck's birthday? Lame." If that's the direction Lost is headed in expect a similar air being let out of the balloon response from under-whelmed viewers.
Simon Crowe: The Ana-Lucia situation is tough because a show as overcrowded as this one can’t afford to have two tough, gun-packing “chicks” as half the interpersonal dynamic on the show involves other characters jostling for positions of island romantic lead (Sawyer vs. Jack) and island leader (Jack again vs. Locke). At some point it was decided that Kate (ostensibly the third lead of season one) would recede deep into the background, mostly showing up to cling to Jack’s side and bat her eyes these days, while Ana-Lucia would get most of the heavy dramatics and face time with the almighty Jack. While I think Ana-Lucia brought an interesting undercurrent of camp-resentment to the show and was larger variable than, apple-cheeked daddy’s girl turned murderer, Kate, fan loyalty is, was and always will be with freckles. With Ana-Lucia now gone I think we can expect a lot more Kate (especially since the show has now killed off three of its un-attached, sexually-viable female leads this season). You think Kate’s had it rough though, look at poor Sayid. Ever since Eko showed up as the potentially menacing, non-white character, Sayid’s had little to do but dig that damn hole every week.
"fan loyalty is, was and always will be with freckles."
Really? Interesting. TWoP folk by and large don't like her, which is not necessarily a barometer, but nobody else I've talked to about the show likes her either; guys will be like, "Well...she's hot," but actively enjoying the character, not so much.
This fan's "loyalty" is with whoever ordered the show runners to stop giving her flashbacks. I don't like the character but frankly she's the least of that show's myriad problems.
Andrew Dignan said...
"I sometimes think I'm way too literal-minded for this show"
That was a strange statement... I could understand you saying it about about "Kings of Queens" or "Will and Grace" or anything that's mindless on TV but we need to encourage more risks ala "Lost" by the networks, not act like we're above it.... my worry about Lost is that it's falling into the same trap as Twin Peaks (season 2) where the writers have revealed the big secrets and have no direction.. making it up as they go.
sars said: "guys will be like, "Well...she's hot," but actively enjoying the character, not so much."
Which I think right there is why you might be baffled by my statement that she's got a following, as I think she's become a popular figure amongst the show's many female fans. I don't spend much time these days at TWOP (last time I poked my head in there at the forums it was just rampant flame wars with statements along the lines of "this show used to be great but it sucks now". Have things changed?) but most of the people I personally know who are into this show are young women, and of the limited options (and shrinking by the day) of young female characters to relate to, Kate's always been at the forefront with them especially when the options have been Ana-Lucia ("bitch"), Shannon ("stuck up bitch") and Libby ("doesn't even warrant her own flashback episode"). Claire and Sun have their fans, but Kate's very much from the JJ Abrams mold of female protagonists: she's pretty but kicks butt. She can fire a gun and kill her abusive step-dad just as easily as she can catch the eye of the island's alpha males and bond with her childhood sweetheart. Now, if you were to put it to me personally to rank my faves, Kate probably would be low on my top 10, but if it was between her and Ana-Lucia (who felt less like an honest to goodness character than just another opportunity for Michelle Rodriguez to give the same performance she's been giving for the past 6 years) that's a no-brainer for me.
The showrunner also stopped giving flashbacks by and large to Claire, Charlie, Sawyer and Sayid as well (each, like Kate, has received only one this season) as they make room for new characters like Eko and Ana-Lucia as well as fleshing out marginal characters like Rose and Bernard. I wouldn't read too much into it.
anonymous: My statement, and the ensuing anecdote that called out a particular erroneous blunder on my part, was meant to underline my own failings, not the show's. I agree the show should aspire to challenge the viewer every week, even if it means occasionally driving me nuts in the process. I certainly don't consider myself "above" the show, not sure where you got that from.
Post a Comment